RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Cisairse]

No, I'm saying that you picking a word out of thin air and then using the etymological root of that word to justify a system of morality is very silly.

If you really think that's what I'm doing then you have utterly failed to understand anything that has been said to you.

There is a meaningful philosophical distinction between a person and an object, and this distinction forms the entire basis of my moral worldview. If you are having sex with another person purely for pleasure, rather than as part of a meaningful relationship borne of love, then you are reducing them conceptually to an object that exists for your pleasure

Why? Because you say so?

You haven't justified this at all. That was my point when I said you were using the word arbitrarily. I presented a rough rebuttal to the idea that having sex just for pleasure is objectifying, and instead of actually trying to defend your claims you just played the word game by arguing over semantics of the definition of the word "object."

and it is for this reason that such an act is sinful. This isn't "picking a word out of thin air." If you are unable to understand arguments built on abstract philosophical concepts, then debating matters of morality is probably not for you.

If it's not "picking a word out of thin air," then justify it. Don't accuse me of being unable to understand arguments when you haven't even bothered to address the content of mine.

[The Archbishopric of York]

If you really think that's what I'm doing then you have utterly failed to understand anything that has been said to you.

There is a meaningful philosophical distinction between a person and an object, and this distinction forms the entire basis of my moral worldview. If you are having sex with another person purely for pleasure, rather than as part of a meaningful relationship borne of love, then you are reducing them conceptually to an object that exists for your pleasure

Why? Because you say so?

You haven't justified this at all. That was my point when I said you were using the word arbitrarily. I presented a rough rebuttal to the idea that having sex just for pleasure is objectifying, and instead of actually trying to defend your claims you just played the word game by arguing over semantics of the definition of the word "object."

As I have pointed out, from a rationalistic perspective all morality is arbitrary. So asking me to justify my moral worldview is pointless; ultimately it is based on assumed axioms that cannot be "justified" but are accepted on faith. You didn't offer any kind of rebuttal to my argument, all you did was ask a silly question that you clearly already knew the answer to. I interpreted the question as it was posed to me, and answered accordingly.

[Fahran]

"HOOKIN UP CULTURE" isnt just 2 people meeting in a back alley and exchanging a verbal agreement to having 2 minutes 30 seconds of unsatisfying sex.

it encompasses a huge range of relations which fall short of "im committed to this person indefinitely or permanently." characterising it as "a better form of masturbating" is lame and eliminates all the nuance from human sexual relations, which is much more deep than religious conservatives ever want to admit

Serial monogamy and polyamory aren't the same thing as hook-up culture. Hook-up culture specifically refers to the practice pursuing sexual relationships without any intention of ever committing to the people involved. In some instances, it's a refusal to commit or to put a label on what is basically a romantic relationship. In many others, it is simply mutual masturbation - where no value is given to your partner as a subject. I usually use it in reference to one night stands which are exclusively masturbatory.

[Cisairse]

Why? Because you say so?

You haven't justified this at all. That was my point when I said you were using the word arbitrarily. I presented a rough rebuttal to the idea that having sex just for pleasure is objectifying, and instead of actually trying to defend your claims you just played the word game by arguing over semantics of the definition of the word "object."

As I have pointed out, from a rationalistic perspective all morality is arbitrary. So asking me to justify my moral worldview is pointless; ultimately it is based on assumed axioms that cannot be "justified" but are accepted on faith. You didn't offer any kind of rebuttal to my argument, all you did was ask a silly question that you clearly already knew the answer to. I interpreted the question as it was posed to me, and answered accordingly.

That's not what happened at all.

You said:

Sex outside of committed relationships is morally wrong, because it dehumanises the partner by reducing them to a mere object from which one can gain sexual pleasure.

Which I take issue with, because you're saying that having casual sex with someone is "dehumanizing," which doesn't makes sense.
I responded with my opinion on the matter:

I don't see how someone being an object for sexual pleasure is dehumanizing.

The entire point of sex is that it's with a human. If you want a dehumanized sexual partner, what's the point in seeking out an actual human?

Which, as you can read, directly challenges your core point (that casual sex is dehumanizing). Notice how I did not mention the word "object" in this post.
Instead of actually addressing my criticism of your core point, you moved the goalposts and began bikeshedding. Specifically, you retreated from the debate to try and justify your core point via circular logic — you said that "objectifying" is inherently "dehumanizing" because the word "objectifying" contains the word "object." You said this (1) despite my post not mentioning your use of the word "object," and thus my criticism of your core point not relying on your use of the word "objectifying;" and (2) this logic is completely circular because you never attempted to defend the idea that casual sex is dehumanizing.

I don't see how someone being an object for sexual pleasure is dehumanizing.

The entire point of sex is that it's with a human. If you want a dehumanized sexual partner, what's the point in seeking out an actual human?

The clue is in the word "object." As opposed to "person."

This quote post offers literally nothing in the form of an argument except that an "object" is not a "person." The idea expressed in this post

1. Is not relevant to my original criticism of your idea
2. Is not relevant to the post you had quoted when saying this
3. Does not defend your idea in any way

I implore you to actually address the content of my posts, rather than moving the goalposts, engaging in bikeshedding, or doing whatever the fallacy is called when you ignore the post you're responding to and double down on what you previously said.

Finally, if you are not going to engage in debate when I post things, it is silly to accuse me of "utterly fail[ing] to understand anything that has been said to you." I have perfectly understood all of your posts. Either you have failed to understand mine, or, having understood them, you have opted to ignore them and post messages unrelated to what I have said.

[Fahran]

Why? Because you say so?

You haven't justified this at all. That was my point when I said you were using the word arbitrarily. I presented a rough rebuttal to the idea that having sex just for pleasure is objectifying, and instead of actually trying to defend your claims you just played the word game by arguing over semantics of the definition of the word "object."

Having sex solely for pleasure is objectifying because you're treating a person as an object rather than a person and a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves. Your rebuttal makes no sense unless you define an object in a way that is atypical of the usual definition.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Having sex solely for pleasure is objectifying because you're treating a person as an object rather than a person and a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves

an assertion you guys keep repeating without explanation or further comment

[Cisairse]

Why? Because you say so?

You haven't justified this at all. That was my point when I said you were using the word arbitrarily. I presented a rough rebuttal to the idea that having sex just for pleasure is objectifying, and instead of actually trying to defend your claims you just played the word game by arguing over semantics of the definition of the word "object."

Having sex solely for pleasure is objectifying because you're treating a person as an object rather than a person and a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves. Your rebuttal makes no sense unless you define an object in a way that is atypical of the usual definition.

That doesn't make sense, though. Why is casual sex "treating a person as an object rather than a person?" I can imagine a few justifications for this idea, and I have rebuttals ready for all of them, but so far nobody in this thread has offered any attempt at a defense for the idea.

[Fahran]

I don't see how someone being an object for sexual pleasure is dehumanizing.

In the same way that reducing someone solely to their position as a source of labor is dehumanizing. You're engaging in a relational dynamic that treats someone as a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves. You're not respecting them as a person. You're viewing them as a thing.

The entire point of sex is that it's with a human. If you want a dehumanized sexual partner, what's the point in seeking out an actual human?

Pleasure of the sexual experience, social status, etc. There are plenty of reasons. This is like arguing that you're not objectifying women when you ogle at them because they're people.

[Fahran]

an assertion you guys keep repeating without explanation or further comment

Let me ask you. What defines a person?

[Fahran]

That doesn't make sense, though. Why is casual sex "treating a person as an object rather than a person?"

Because treating someone like a person means engaging them as a subject rather than as an object and treating them as an end in and of themselves. Approaching people based on what they can do for you is a sociopathic or economic way of structuring your personal relationships.

I can imagine a few justifications for this idea, and I have rebuttals ready for all of them, but so far nobody in this thread has offered any attempt at a defense for the idea.

Yes, but not all rebuttals are worthwhile. There's not really any good way of rejecting the Kantian or Buberian perspective on this issue.

[Nakena]

Having sex solely for pleasure is objectifying because you're treating a person as an object rather than a person and a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves

an assertion you guys keep repeating without explanation or further comment

Mutual pleasure might be a thing too.

[Cisairse]

I don't see how someone being an object for sexual pleasure is dehumanizing.

In the same way that reducing someone solely to their position as a source of labor is dehumanizing. You're engaging in a relational dynamic that treats someone as a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves.

This is untrue for the simple reason that most people who engage in hookup culture would not just go out and fuck anyone who was willing.

I also have issue with the idea that sex is "reductive." What are you "reducing" the person from? Is sex somehow not a core part of humanity? Is a person's body not the entirety of their physical existence?

Casual sex is not inhumane. Generally the person you are having sex with is one of the most important parts of the social dynamic.

You're not respecting them as a person.

How is casual sex disrespectful? It is consensual. Sex is an act that humans can partake in. It is illogical to say that it's disrespectful to them "as a person," unless you are pulling some weird mind-body dualism schitck and defining "person" as an abstract idea separate from the physical body.

You're viewing them as a thing.

People are, objectively, things. It's really not correct to say that casual sex implies people viewing other people as inanimate objects. If that were true, as I mentioned before, there would be a lot more use of inanimate objects in hookup culture rather than people.

The entire point of sex is that it's with a human. If you want a dehumanized sexual partner, what's the point in seeking out an actual human?

Pleasure of the sexual experience, social status, etc. There are plenty of reasons. This is like arguing that you're not objectifying women when you ogle at them because they're people.

The key difference here is that "ogle at" women doesn't involve a consensual mutually beneficial experience prerequisited on shared goals.

The way you're writing this implies to me that you think hookups are akin to rape.

[Cisairse]

That doesn't make sense, though. Why is casual sex "treating a person as an object rather than a person?"

Because treating someone like a person means engaging them as a subject rather than as an object and treating them as an end in and of themselves. Approaching people based on what they can do for you is a sociopathic or economic way of structuring your personal relationships.

Person A looks at Person B and finds them attractive.
Person B looks at Person A and finds them attractive.

They have sex. They are happy now.

Who is the sociopath in this scenario?

I can imagine a few justifications for this idea, and I have rebuttals ready for all of them, but so far nobody in this thread has offered any attempt at a defense for the idea.

Yes, but not all rebuttals are worthwhile. There's not really any good way of rejecting the Kantian or Buberian perspective on this issue.

By all means, present the idea and I will tear it down.

The idea that people are abstractly pure concepts which can be soiled by decisions they make on their own is ridiculous, and that seems to be what you're basing your views on here.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Okay losers, stop talking about sex and talk about important things. You guys ever feel an depthless despair at the knowledge that you and everyone you care about will one day die?

[The Archbishopric of York]

As I have pointed out, from a rationalistic perspective all morality is arbitrary. So asking me to justify my moral worldview is pointless; ultimately it is based on assumed axioms that cannot be "justified" but are accepted on faith. You didn't offer any kind of rebuttal to my argument, all you did was ask a silly question that you clearly already knew the answer to. I interpreted the question as it was posed to me, and answered accordingly.

That's not what happened at all.

That is exactly what happened.

You said:

Sex outside of committed relationships is morally wrong, because it dehumanises the partner by reducing them to a mere object from which one can gain sexual pleasure.

Which I take issue with, because you're saying that having casual sex with someone is "dehumanizing," which doesn't makes sense.
I responded with my opinion on the matter:

I don't see how someone being an object for sexual pleasure is dehumanizing.

The entire point of sex is that it's with a human. If you want a dehumanized sexual partner, what's the point in seeking out an actual human?

Which, as you can read, directly challenges your core point (that casual sex is dehumanizing). Notice how I did not mention the word "object" in this post.

Oh no?

I don't see how someone being an object for sexual pleasure is dehumanizing.

Emphasis mine. You use the word "object" right there. I read this as it was written- you don't see how being an object is dehumanising. I pointed out that treating a human being as an object is inherently dehumanising, because humans are persons not objects; which isn't arguing about semantics, it's the concepts that the words represent that I am invoking.

Instead of actually addressing my criticism of your core point, you moved the goalposts and began bikeshedding. Specifically, you retreated from the debate to try and justify your core point via circular logic — you said that "objectifying" is inherently "dehumanizing" because the word "objectifying" contains the word "object." You said this (1) despite my post not mentioning your use of the word "object," and thus my criticism of your core point not relying on your use of the word "objectifying;" and (2) this logic is completely circular because you never attempted to defend the idea that casual sex is dehumanizing.

I have defended it multiple times, you have simply refused to acknowledge my arguments in favour of misrepresenting them as semantic arguments relying on the etymologies of words, which is ridiculous.

The clue is in the word "object." As opposed to "person."

This quote post offers literally nothing in the form of an argument except that an "object" is not a "person." The idea expressed in this post

1. Is not relevant to my original criticism of your idea
2. Is not relevant to the post you had quoted when saying this
3. Does not defend your idea in any way

I implore you to actually address the content of my posts, rather than moving the goalposts, engaging in bikeshedding, or doing whatever the fallacy is called when you ignore the post you're responding to and double down on what you previously said.

Finally, if you are not going to engage in debate when I post things, it is silly to accuse me of "utterly fail[ing] to understand anything that has been said to you." I have perfectly understood all of your posts.

If you have understood my posts then you are deliberately misrepresenting them.

Either you have failed to understand mine, or, having understood them, you have opted to ignore them and post messages unrelated to what I have said.

If I have failed to understand you, then I apologise and would ask that you try to explain your position differently. If you have misunderstood me, then I am unsure how I can possibly express myself better; but I would encourage you to read about Martin Buber's philosophy of dialogue which might help you better grasp the distinction I make between an object, which is defined only in terms relative to the definer as an "it" (i.e. an "I-It relationship" in Buber's terminology), and a person- who is recognised as "thou" independent of the definer (what Buber would describe as an "I-Thou relationship").

We can only grow and fulfil our purpose in the world by entering into "I-Thou" relationships, each of which bring us into a closer relationship with the ultimate "Thou," which is God. So long as we approach the other as an object, however, we are unable to appreciate them as a "Thou."

[Fahran]

This is untrue for the simple reason that most people who engage in hookup culture would not just go out and fuck anyone who was willing.

You would not hire simply anyone to work a job either. That doesn't mean that simply paying an employee acknowledges their humanity. The fundamental nature of the relationship is not one rooted in concern for the other.

I also have issue with the idea that sex is "reductive." What are you "reducing" the person from? Is sex somehow not a core part of humanity? Is a person's body not the entirety of their physical existence?

It becomes reductive when it serves no purpose beyond personal pleasure. A lot of people misunderstand religious institutions and their perceptions of human sexuality. Sex itself is not at all a bad thing. It's the context that matters. And how you perceive and treat the other person. Objectification is the act of treating a person like an object or thing. An object is not an end in and of itself and is not interacted with in a subjective way. Objectification is one aspect of dehumanization. I'm trying to figure out which of these philosophical positions you reject because they all are pretty standard as far as I'm aware.

Casual sex is not inhumane. Generally the person you are having sex with is one of the most important parts of the social dynamic.

Being an important part of the social dynamic does not mean that they're necessarily a subject if the principal objective is your own personal gratification.

How is casual sex disrespectful?

I said you weren't respecting them as a person. If a person must be a subject, then treating them as an object is by default not treating them as a person. If you're not treating them as a person, you can hardly respect them as a person with your actions in that particular context. And, presumably, if it's a one night stand, there's not going to be much more context.

It is consensual.

Doesn't matter in the context of our discussion.

Sex is an act that humans can partake in.

An act that they can engage in with an object. An act that animals can engage in with other animals. An act that animals can engage in with objects. It's not exclusive to humans.

It is illogical to say that it's disrespectful to them "as a person," unless you are pulling some weird mind-body dualism schitck and defining "person" as an abstract idea separate from the physical body.

The object-subject dichotomy doesn't exactly disappear when we move to pure materialism though I'm not a materialist.

People are, objectively, things. It's really not correct to say that casual sex implies people viewing other people as inanimate objects. If that were true, as I mentioned before, there would be a lot more use of inanimate objects in hookup culture rather than people.

Viewing a person in an objectifying way does not mean viewing them as inanimate. Again, your position on this logically makes it impossible to objectify or dehumanize anyone.

The key difference here is that "ogle at" women doesn't involve a consensual mutually beneficial experience prerequisited on shared goals.

A lack of consent doesn't define objectification.

The way you're writing this implies to me that you think hookups are akin to rape.

Except that wasn't implied at all. A lack of consent =/= Objectification. Both are unethical but for different reasons.

[Fahran]

Okay losers, stop talking about sex and talk about important things. You guys ever feel an depthless despair at the knowledge that you and everyone you care about will one day die?

This is what comes of reading Hegel and Russian authors, UMN.

[The Archbishopric of York]

Okay losers, stop talking about sex and talk about important things. You guys ever feel an depthless despair at the knowledge that you and everyone you care about will one day die?

This is what comes of reading Hegel and Russian authors, UMN.

The answer to this is simple: read more Japanese philosophy, embrace mono-no-aware and learn to appreciate the beauty in the impermanence of things.

[Fahran]

Person A looks at Person B and finds them attractive.
Person B looks at Person A and finds them attractive.

They have sex. They are happy now.

Who is the sociopath in this scenario?

Again, the relational dynamic is sociopathic or economic. They just engaged in mutual masturbation. You can rationalize this if you're a hedonist perhaps, but few other ethical frameworks would consider this ethical, presuming no other context beyond what you included.

By all means, present the idea and I will tear it down.

I don't think you want to knock Kant down given that he probably provides the best justification for your world view that currently exists.

The idea that people are abstractly pure concepts which can be soiled by decisions they make on their own is ridiculous, and that seems to be what you're basing your views on here.

That's not the idea at all. The fact that you literally referred to persons as objects in the hypothetical earlier more or less demonstrates the point we've been trying to get at. I'll reiterate.

Casual sex treats someone as an object to obtain sexual gratification. (You've conceded this point implicitly.)

Objectification is a prime element of dehumanization.

If you dehumanize someone, you're not treating them like a human being or person.

We should treat human beings like human beings or persons.

Not doing so is unethical.

[Salus Maior]

Tfw you set up a birdfeeder and manage to make it so that squirrels can't destroy it.

This is what's been getting me through the quarantine guys.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Again, the relational dynamic is sociopathic or economic. They just engaged in mutual masturbation. You can rationalize this if you're a hedonist perhaps, but few other ethical frameworks would consider this ethical, presuming no other context beyond what you included.

We should treat human beings like human beings or persons.

Not doing so is unethical.

I've seen it said by plenty of right wing people: you have to treat others as if they're people not objects for your satisfaction, so casual sex is verboten.

The basis of capitalism is labour as commodity. If labour is not commodity, no capitalism. If labour is not commodity, Fahran can't buy iphone. If Fahran doesn't treat brown people in another country as an object for Fahran's gratification, Fahran can't buy iphone.

You see the problem here?

The right has no problem with using other people as objects when it comes to capitalism. It's only when its people having sex that they find it bad or something. Now this leads me to a conclusion: there is another reason that the right makes a special exemption for treating people as object when it comes to sex and nothing else.

This is the reason — "y'all" are religious conservatives who want to apply judeo-christian social idealism to the world. That's fine. The problem is that judeo-christianism got cancelled a while ago and you can't make up a better reason than "don't use people as an object" when your reason should in fact be something along the lines of: "men and women need perpetual union to continue civilisation, get in the bin commie subversives", which is the Diop line that you all should be following but aren't because you're playing at being woke, unlike Diop.

There's a reason all religions try to control the sexual behaviour of men and women, because when men can be guaranteed a family life they turn their energies and attentions to constructing civilisation, whereas when they can't be guaranteed a family life they turn their energies to eliminating it. Controlling both men and womens sexual behaviour makes society more stable, makes society more likely to produce civilisation, makes society more likely to produce lasting glory. All people recognised this since long time ago and implemented it into their code of ethics by saying if you don't follow it you pissed off Big Sky Man.

Thus ancient recognition of actual human condition became religious imperative.

Like I said in another post I don't think you can control men and women drinking vodka and putting white powder in their noses. They'll do it even in the most extreme of situations. What matters is that after a while they settle down and produce a family and direct their attentions to engineering civilisation. If they do that then it doesn't matter whether they treated ppl as object or not. If they don't then it doesn't either.

[Bear Stearns]

Because treating someone like a person means engaging them as a subject rather than as an object and treating them as an end in and of themselves. Approaching people based on what they can do for you is a sociopathic or economic way of structuring your personal relationships.

Person A looks at Person B and finds them attractive.
Person B looks at Person A and finds them attractive.

They have sex. They are happy now.

Usually never works that simply unless both sides are hammered as shit (in which case that happens fairly often).

[Salus Maior]

Person A looks at Person B and finds them attractive.
Person B looks at Person A and finds them attractive.

They have sex. They are happy now.

Usually never works that simply unless both sides are hammered as shit (in which case that happens fairly often).

They're not always very happy about it either.

[Luminesa]

Okay losers, stop talking about sex and talk about important things. You guys ever feel an depthless despair at the knowledge that you and everyone you care about will one day die?

I mean this sounds like an existential crisis. We can only pray for hope to bear with such realities.

[Bear Stearns]

Usually never works that simply unless both sides are hammered as shit (in which case that happens fairly often).

They're not always very happy about it either.

It's usually never worth it. It's one of things that seems fun in the moment, but you just feel gross and sleazy when it's all said and done.